Wait v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

Supreme Court of Tennessee · Torts

TortsWorkers' compensationTelecommutingAssault injuriesworkers' compensationtelecommutinghome officeneutral assault

Facts

The plaintiff worked for the American Cancer Society from her home because the employer lacked office space, and her home office functioned as her workplace with employer-provided equipment and occasional meetings with supervisors and co-workers. While working alone around noon, she was in her kitchen preparing lunch when a neighbor, Sawyers, knocked, briefly entered, left, then returned claiming he had left keys in the kitchen. When she turned away, he followed her inside and brutally assaulted her without provocation or explanation. The plaintiff's work did not require her to open her home to the public, and there was no evidence that Sawyers was there on any business related to the employer or the plaintiff's work.

Issue

Whether injuries sustained by a telecommuting employee who was assaulted by a third party in her home during a lunch break both occurred in the course of employment and arose out of employment for purposes of workers' compensation coverage. More specifically, the court considered whether a permissible personal break at a sanctioned home worksite satisfies the 'course of employment' requirement and whether a neutral assault at that site satisfies the causal 'arising out of' requirement.

Rule

An injury occurs in the course of employment when it takes place within the period of employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be, and while the employee is fulfilling work duties or doing something incidental thereto; permissible personal breaks such as eating lunch can satisfy this requirement at an employer-sanctioned home office. But a neutral assault arises out of employment only when the facts and circumstances fairly suggest either that the attacker singled out the employee because of the employee's association with the employer or that the employment indiscriminately exposed the employee to dangers from the public; otherwise the street risk doctrine does not supply the causal connection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz works full-time from an employer-approved home office in Denver because her employer, Summit Harbor Analytics, has no local office space. During her regular workday, she walks to her kitchen to heat soup for lunch, and while there she slips on a wet floor and fractures her wrist.

Are Lena's injuries most likely deemed to have occurred in the course of employment?

Explanation. An injury is in the course of employment when it occurs within the period of employment, at a place the employee reasonably may be, and while the employee is performing work duties or something incidental to them. The majority treated an employer-approved home office as a worksite and viewed the kitchen there as analogous to an ordinary workplace break area. A normal lunch break is a permissible incidental activity, so Lena's injury most likely occurred in the course of employment. (Derived from Wait v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (n.d.).)